Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

I'll Wait for the Diesel - 2015 Chevrolet Colorado Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Posts: 10,059
edited February 2015 in Chevrolet
imageI'll Wait for the Diesel - 2015 Chevrolet Colorado Long-Term Road Test

The 2015 Chevrolet Colorado revives the utility of a midsize truck, but it consumes fuel more like a full-size truck.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • adamb1adamb1 Cookeville, TNPosts: 122
    I bet the Colorado is heavier than the Jeep.
  • s197gts197gt Posts: 486
    not to mention that the inline 6 you have in your cherokee is a crazy old engine design. sure, it had been updated through the years but it still started life, what, in the 80s?

    i'd be real curious to know what the 5.3 v8 could earn in the colorado!
  • ahightowerahightower TXPosts: 539
    It is interesting how emission regulations have kept pace with engine development (or is it vice versa) so that modern cars are rarely more efficient that anything from the 90's. We had a crappy little 1996 Geo Metro (wife's first car, I married into it) that got 40 on the highway very easily. That was with the 3-speed auto, a friend's 5-speed manual did even better. Maybe it spewed lots of CO2, who knows. We flipped out the first time it cost more than $10 for a tank of gas.
  • Where are the mid-size truck lovers now? Unless you feel like spending almost as much for a half ton, to get the same mileage (or worse), have less utility, but be able to park easier (which really isn't that hard to begin with, unless you are a terrible driver)... GO COLORADO!!... yeah, no.
  • Diesel costs 50% more than regular gas at the moment. Unless you need/want the torque for towing, I doubt you would ever make up the difference in economy.
  • s197gts197gt Posts: 486
    friend's dad just got a colorado with the 4 cylinder.

    that's probably the one to get if at all.

    (he also bought a '15 corvette...)
  • Well, I would definitely buy one if it meant getting out of a Toyota.
  • reminderreminder Posts: 383
    From my seat the diesel isn't worth the added price & fuel premiums.
    A smaller scale truck can tow and haul more than enough material for the lion-share of truck buyers.
    Heck the vast majority of truck buyers purchase out of want not need.
  • It really sounds like a perfect reason for Tesla to build an electric Truck.
  • bankerdannybankerdanny Posts: 1,021
    Based on the current average prices fro regular and diesel (per AAA) 15k miles @ an avg of 20mpg is $1,550 a year in gas. 15k miles in a diesel averaging 25mpg is $1,676 a year. There is a small psychological bump from getting an extra 100 miles or more from a tank, but that kind of disappears when you then spend more to actually fill it.
  • bankerdannybankerdanny Posts: 1,021

    It is interesting how emission regulations have kept pace with engine development (or is it vice versa) so that modern cars are rarely more efficient that anything from the 90's. We had a crappy little 1996 Geo Metro (wife's first car, I married into it) that got 40 on the highway very easily. That was with the 3-speed auto, a friend's 5-speed manual did even better. Maybe it spewed lots of CO2, who knows. We flipped out the first time it cost more than $10 for a tank of gas.

    Sure, but that Metro weighed 1,600 pounds and it got 49 hp from its 1.0l 3cyl engine (the fulel injected model).

    Its modern equivalent, the Chevy Spark, weighs 2200 pounds and has 84 hp from its 1.2l 4 cyl and gets mid 30's on the highway, plus while slow by modern standards, it will still crush that Metro, while getting only about 10% worse fuel economy, being (on a realtive basis) far far safer, and vastly more quiet and comfortable, and yes, cleaner too.

  • I am also curious what this thing could do with the Silverado's 5.3, or even 4.3 for that matter. I would think that being significantly lighter it should get a more noticeable bump than it currently does. I still like this truck, but I see no reason why it must be limited to a V6, other than to simply preserve full size truck sales. But it's pretty stupid to hamstring Paul so Peter can sell more when they both work for the same boss.
  • The diesel might be a game changer if it's not priced too high. GM was smart enough to use the diesel that has been in their midsize trucks in other markets because it has been out long enough to work out in teething problems. They only had to upgrade the glow plugs and add a block heater to handle U.S, winters. Nissan also will be adding a 2.8 4 cylinder Cummins diesel to the Frontier. If the diesel proves to be popular Toyota may be in trouble with the gas only Tacomas.
  • It has seemed for a while that midsized pickups don't offer a significant fuel economy advantage over fullsize models despite smaller size and smaller engines. This drives a lot of truck buyers into the fullsize models. It seems like automakers ought to be able to do better.

    BTW, you should get better than 15mpg combined in your XJ Cherokee. That should be its city rating. I got about 17 combined in my '97. I traded in a few years ago for an Xterra, which I regard as the spiritual descendant of the classic XJ.
  • cus70cus70 Posts: 1
    I would love to see a turbocharged gasoline engine in this category. If Ford were to build an all aluminum Ranger with a 2.7 liter ecoboost, it would provide all the benefits of a diesel engine without the extra weight and higher fuel price at the pump. To me, this would be the perfect engine in a midsize truck.
  • zr2eezr2ee Posts: 1
    Crazy, some people complain about the gas mileage of their Tacoma's but my 2006 double cab long bed 4x4 gets 17 average with 660 injectors and a turbo... i was getting 20 average stock. I wonder if there is a discrepancy between what the computer calculates and what people calculate at the pump. I've seen similar claims with the new Colorado, some do better some do worse but overall it doesn't seem like they really made much of a gain here, At least not enough of one to justify trading in for it. I think dropping more weight and even cylinder deactivation on this V6 would have brought us closer to what people expect. Not sure why they didn't implement more of this...maybe cost or time, or maybe they're just holding out so they can add those features to future trucks and keep them fresh.
  • Article is right on the money.
    I too like small pickups and Colorado has a lot too offer, but I too will wait for the diesel.
  • robertslatez71robertslatez71 MarylandPosts: 20
    True.. I would have prefered a diesel over all the rest.. but things happen and in life you must act upon your own instincts. I do regret trading in the 2004 Chevy Tahoe.. and a few more weekend jaunts out and about may prove beneficial. I just see "diesel" as the last frontier and one vehicle I'll never be able to possess.
  • watkinstwatkinst Posts: 119
    I'll wait for the new Nissan Frontier. All the playing cards are on the table Nissan if they were smart should launch a new Frontier that bests the new Tacoma and Canyon/Colorado. I had Ford Ranger, replaced it with a 4runner for seating room. Replaced the 4runner with a Subaru for safety, improved handling and mileage. I watch the new Midsized truck battle with great interest. Decent back seat 4dr with car like crash standards and Subaru like mileage yet increased load capacity and off road capability....yes please...

    I would go diesel for increased range, better low end power for truck like use. The V6 in the Colorado/Canyon is way too car like lacks low speed grunt and needs to gett the boot to give you any hauling grunt. I'll stick with my Subaru if thats all GM can do. The skinny 2nd row doors are soooo typical GM and why we didnt look at the Suburban and bought a sequoia instead.
  • evcarftwevcarftw Orlando FLPosts: 1
    Where are the true savings in 'today's' market when it comes to diesels? Most now require special *expensive* additives to meet EPA standards. Diesel is more costly per gallon now than gas and the manufacturers usually tack on a hefty fee for the diesel engine upgrade. So just how long do you have to own it and drive it, getting 100 mpg more out of a tank of more costly fuel before you truly save? It's a legitimate question.
    Drive what you like and like what you drive. Their opinion means nothing.
  • hoop75hoop75 Ontario, CanadaPosts: 1
    evcarftw said:

    Where are the true savings in 'today's' market when it comes to diesels? Most now require special *expensive* additives to meet EPA standards. Diesel is more costly per gallon now than gas and the manufacturers usually tack on a hefty fee for the diesel engine upgrade. So just how long do you have to own it and drive it, getting 100 mpg more out of a tank of more costly fuel before you truly save? It's a legitimate question.


    Urea additive is not expensive. It is $15 retail for 2.5 gallons at Pep Boys, and as low as $2.79 a gallon bulk. That works out to less than $3-6 per thousand miles. As for the cost of diesel fuel - it's regional. I live in Ontario, Canada, and diesel fuel is about 5-10 cents (per litre) more expensive half the year and the other half about the same less expensive making the annual fuel cost about equal to gasoline. Our fuel costs are way higher than the US too. Currently we pay about $1.20/litre which is $4.54 per gallon. Once the fuel cost is a wash, diesels really are 40% cheaper to operate, even with the *expensive* urea additive.

    And as mentioned above, diesel torque is ideal for towing and hauling and exacts less of a penalty on economy while doing so.
  • thecardoc3thecardoc3 Posts: 5,050
    Here is what one can expect with the diesels. Should you have an injector fail you are faced with the choice of trying to do just one injector, or else the whole set. Consider this ebay listing as an example of the wholesale price. http://www.ebay.com/itm/DURAMAX-INJECTORS-CHEVY-CHEVROLET-GMC-2500-06-07-LBZ-6-6-FULL-SET-BOSCH-NEW-OEM-/130948544804

    $2600, for the set and its only fair that the shop recognize a profit at the retail level. Then you have the labor to replaced them. The Duramax is one of the easier engines and all eight will take just about six hours by the flat rate manual. That puts you well over the $4000 level by the time you total up filters, gaskets, fluids etc.
Sign In or Register to comment.